Creation science or not?

I think this has been covered a few times, but I am giving my take on it. Let me just express that I am neither for or against creation science. I am probably more against it. I do not really believe at this point that you can prove it. That is not what God is supposed to be about to me. The way we are supposed to show God to others is a subjective way.Many people in here claim creation science not to be science at all. I disagree, all science is science.Here are some of my reasons for coming to the conclusion that creation science is indeed science.Once while discussing with schrafinator about "true scientists" and "true science" I brought up the fact the science is not always used for the good. It has been used to create more harm than good. To her, and me, this is not true science, and that is because of the motives behind it. But we are wrong as our definition does not follow the definition of the scientific method.Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Scientific method as envisaged by one of its early exponents, Sir Isaac Newton, is fundamental to the investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists use observations, hypotheses, and logic to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories that can be reproducibly tested by experiment are the basis for developing new technology.

---

Scientific method - WikipediaSo creating an atom bomb fits that description.So does creation science. The physical evidence people feel as the Holy Spirit falls on them is real. Whether it is God or not, is what they want to find out by using the scientific method. Many unexplained events, such as healings, and all the supernatural phenomena claimed in the bible, can be investigated. This makes it science.No where in that description does it say that you have to not have a goal, or an objective when searching for answers. In fact it says the opposite. You can believe in the TOE based on evidence, and then try to prove it. You can believe in God based on evidence, and try to prove it. Just because one theory has more physical evidence than the other, does not make it more science than the other. When the TOE was first thought up, the evidence was limited. That never stopped people from trying to prove it.You may never be able to prove either one, unless Jesus comes back tomorrow, but that shouldn't stop us from trying.What should people who do not believe in God, or people that do not believe in creation science be worried about? If it cannot be proven, or does not exist, then the truth will come out.This is no different than someone who has gone crazy, and doctors cannot find a reason why. Should they not pursue it because it does not fit the scientific method?There are all kinds of science,
cancer science
supernatural science: WEBRING
The list can go on and on.Each one of these sciences has a different motive. There is no doubt that some people who believe in God, myself included, feel something physical.In the spirit of a true scientifically minded person, you would always be searching to see if these feelings you have are from God, or from your own mind. This is science.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Well, yes. All science is science.One aspect of science is that you go by the evidence, and if the evidence demonstrates you are wrong, you disguard your hypothesis.The problem with 'creation science' is that it takes the approch that the bible is 100% inerrent, and that the world is 12,000 years old or younger, and anything that disputes that must be wrong.For example, when it comes to carbon dating, they go through long and various methods to try to show that carbon dating is invalid, yet their 'test cases' are not valid test cases. They create fantasies to try to disprove the conclusions of the evidence, using bad science and out right lies. Any evidence that disproves their initial conclusion
(the world is young) is rejected. They wrap their conclusions up in scientific sounding babble, but it is meaningless.This is known as 'psusedo science'. The termingology mimmics science, but the methology is a rejection of science, and the scientific method.When it comes to trying to prove 'god did it', there are not testable claims. There is no way to DISPROVE it. It does not make predictions about what should be found, and therefore we can not test to see if something can be found that shows it COULDN'T happen. We can (and have) disproven the claim the world is only 12,000 years old. We can not test the claim 'god did it'.This message has been edited by ramoss, 03-08-2006 10:30 AM

As far as I can see (and I am short so I can't see far) the evidence for a creator is inferential. We attribute physiological experiences to existential causes.In my job I see many people complaining of chest pains to discociations of mind; my patients swear blind it has to have some physical cause. It takes a great deal of work to alter their beliefs about their symptoms.Science looks at a phenomena in question and formulates a tentative hypothesis. We try as hard as we can to regect it. We say "this head ache was caused by (insert reason)". We then do as much as we can to 'rule out' that reason. In my role I help patients 'rule out' reasons for their symptoms by using a logical approach. We look at concrete evidence such as medical test results, we look at cognitive distortions being made, the negative recall bias, the fundemental attribution error etc. Above all we try to rule out the beliefs we have.If we can't do this then we can conclude that we were probably right with our tentative hypothesis. Not proved mind you, just most likely.I would contend that the science used by creationists tries to 'rule in' divine creation. This is the distinction that I feel on balance invalidates the use of the word science in this context.

Does all Creation science claim that? Or only YEC.
Is there some kind of rule that says in order to be a Creation scientists you must be a a literal YEC?

Even pseudoscience? All science is science is a handy dandy tautology, but it assumes that creation science is science, if it isn't then it isn't science (to drive home another tautology). I wouldn't call that physical evidence. Its a real feeling, but it isn't physical in the sense of a tangible piece of evidence that can be tested by other people to arrive at the same conclusions. One can do science to try and uncover the truth behind supernatural phenomenon, but that isn't what creation scientists are famed for doing. They already 'know' the truth behind the supernatural phenomenon and they try to gather only evidence that is consistent with that and ignore evidence that is inconsistent. If you define that as science then I guess you are right. Agreed. More specifically one can believe the evidence indicate life has changed over a long period of time and then try to fit that into some kind of explanatory framework (which is now called ToE). There is already an explanatory framework in place, creation scientists try and squeeze the evidence to fit it, rather than the other way around. Quite, but what makes creation science not science is that it inevitably comes across data that is massively inconsistent with their model and so they put that down to a miracle. There is no evidence that a miracle occurred, but there must be or our theory is wrong. That's not science. It certainly didn't stop people from trying to gather more evidence to see if it confirms or falsifies the theory. Once again, evidence has already falsified the Creationist's central theory, so they have to ignore that evidence and only focus on the evidence that doesn't contradict their theory...not science. It should. Instead we should be looking to confirm the theories so that we can develop a solid explanatory framework that can be used practically to make predictions etc. What we're about is that the truth has come out^*, but some people are trying to convince others that it hasn't by using pseudoscience and rhetoric. Should we be worried about holocaust denial? What if holocaust deniers tried to get their ideas taught in schools, went to court over, and wanted the 'alternative' taught. They have 'evidence' that Hitler was ignorant of the whole thing and his glorious Reich should be brought back.Sound good? I'd rather they did follow the scientific model. We could resort to quackery and bleed him off, apply hot glass, leeches and make him wear rotting meat to oust the bad humours...but erm...well I doubt we'd learn anything. Better to apply the scientific method and see if we can't eventually figure out what is going wrong. We might be able to help, or at least alleviate the problem. Anything can call itself science if it wants to, its not illegal. In the spirit of a true scientifically minded person, I'll keep my mind open but remain highly skeptical about everything that does not have a decent amount of support. Creation science is definitely included in this.^*tentatively as always. The creation model is about as falsified as it can realistically get, but blind faith is blind faith so the awkward data is on the whole ignored.

You can be a YEC or Old Earth, doesn't much matter. Creation Science can never be scientific since it starts with a conclusion.For example, consider Baraminology. It starts with the first assumption that any Kind mentioned in the Bible takes precedence over ANY and all conflicting evidence. from Frair, 2000.It is even possible that the Creationists might be right, however it will NEVER be science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The problem still remains that ALl creation science starts with the conclusion, and rejects any information that does not fit into the conclusion.This is the exact opposite of science. Science uses evidence, comes up with a hypthosis, and then, after futhrer testing, if data is found that falsifies the origial hypthosis, rejects the hypothises.Creation science is bad science, and bad theology.

No-true-scientist? That is only your opinion. Because of the placebo effect you cannot claim it to be true or untrue. I do not agree with that. In that, it is a wrong way of going about things, but that does not make it science or not.Plus, I do not think that all creation scientists think that way. Or you could say they test theories. Documented example please. I agree that ignoring evidence is not good science. All things must have an explanation. But since nothing is ever actually proven.... Sure, but that doesn't define science. If we lived like that exclusively, we would be let down a lot. Stomach ulcers are a perfect example. About people, or about God? Just like anyone can call themselves a Christian. Maybe.

I guess I can't speak for others, but for me, thats how it happened.
I felt something, then I am seeking to confirm it.

Doesn't it at least start with a theory? The theory that God exists?After all who can prove God exists? Well thats what we are trying to prove.I went to the IRC site, and they claim what drives them is trying to prove that evolutionary humanism is wrong.

quote:

---

Welcome to the Institute for Creation Research
We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5).

---

Doesn't say there that God is proven to exist. For lack of more proper words, they are putting TOE to the test, really.

You missed this part ... from ICR Tenets on Creationism:

quote:

---

Tenets of Scientific Creationism

• The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
• The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variation) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
  The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start.
• Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
• The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
• Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates but, since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
• The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.
• Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation, and it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
• Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally and scientifically, and to reach an intelligent decision regarding one's place in the Creator's plan.

Tenets of Biblical Creationism

• The Creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of all being and meaning, and He exists in three Persons, each of whom participated in the work of creation.
• The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.
• All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false. All things which now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.
• The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants. In Adam, mankind was instructed to exercise "dominion" over all other created organisms, and over the earth itself (an implicit commission for true science, technology, commerce, fine art, and education) but the temptation by Satan and the entrance of sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence.
• The Biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and fall of man, the curse on the creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human govemment) and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.
• The alienation of man from his Creator because of sin can only be remedied by the Creator Himself, who became man in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, through miraculous conception and virgin birth. In Christ were indissolubly united perfect sinless humanity and full deity, so that His substitutionary death is the only necessary and sufficient price of man's redemption. That the redemption was completely efficacious is assured by His bodily resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven; the resurrection of Christ is thus the focal point of history, assuring the consummation of God's purposes in creation.
• The final restoration of creation's perfection is yet future, but individuals can immediately be restored to fellowship with their Creator, on the basis of His redemptive work on their behalf, receiving forgiveness and etemal life solely through personal trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, accepting Him not only as estranged Creator but also as reconciling Redeemer and coming King. Those who reject Him, however, or who neglect to believe on Him, thereby continue in their state of rebellion and must ultimately be consigned to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

---

Sure looks like starting with a whole bunch of conclusions. It sure ain't a theory, since they're presenting it as unquestionable.

No, not at all. It starts with the conclusion that God exists, and also with the conclusion that the Bible is accurate. If you read what I quoted in Message 7 you will see that they begin with the conclusion that what is said in the Bible will take precedence over what is found in reality.No, Creationism will never be science. It is totally bankrupt and can never lead to any advances. Until they are willing to put GOD to the test under the scientific method, it's a lost cause.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, your right.but is the IRC the only source for creation science?

ICR. First ask if there are any sources for creation science. They are not the only source that claims to be doing creation science, but such dogmatic statements are common. E.g. CRS Statement of Belief, CSA Beliefs, Creation Ministries International Statement of Faith, and Answers in Genesis: About Us.Of course it's pretty obvious to a casual observer that those who do not explicitly subscribe to such statements do so implicitly.